Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Shells Out $50 Million For GTA IV Content
Ars Technica is reporting on the highly-anticipated downloadable content for GTA IV mentioned by Microsoft at last year's E3. It appears that, first off, that content is only coming to the Xbox 360. Secondly, Microsoft paid some $50 Million for the privilege. This is from a financials conference call held by Take Two, and a question about a deferred payment from Microsoft reveals the general release schedule for the content. "The first 25 [million] is for the first episodic content package that's supposed to go out and that is in March of '08. That's why it moved into current because it's in the next 12 months. The second 25 [million] will be for the second episodic, the episode, and that will be later in fiscal '08."
Hey, if someone wants to pay me 50 million bucks, I'd write for any platform they want. Don't see anything wrong with that at all!
This is my sig.
Companies paying off game developers for exclusive only content/games/accessories has been going on for along time.
Going with the whole monopoly thing, if your money is coming from a monopoly in one area, are you allow to start paying people out in other areas to exclude the competition?
Anyone know the legal issues around this, or is it acceptable?
Can we please refrain from using the term next gen to refer to the current generation of gaming hardware. Thanks
my band is more brutal techno punk than yours
I don't remember any big outcry when Sony used the same tactic with the same franchise against Microsoft. Sony signed exclusivity deals for GTA 3, Vice City, and San Andreas when the Xbox was the new kid in the game. The difference being that they were timed-exclusives. I don't think the value of the deal was ever made public, but I'm sure it was much less.
Is this karma, irony, or both? I bought a PS2 for GTA 3, and now I'll buy a 360 for GTA 4 (among other things).
Expect to shell out at least $15 a piece for each of these "episodic" updates. I suppose this is really good news for GTA addicts who have X-Box 360's. Personally, I find it a disturbing trend that Microsoft is throwing money at developers to make them develop custom content for the 360. Nintendo and Sony don't have the treasure coffers of a Operating System monopoly to get that kind of money and do likewise. Even though this relationship seems like a win-win-win for Rockstar, Microsoft, and GTA players... I still don't like the idea of Microsoft influencing how my games are made. Imagine if Microsoft paid Irrational Games $100 million for the next Bioshock game. Microsoft could say "We want you to end the game on a huge cliffhanger. Then we want the last 10 hours of the game to be an X-Box only expansion." As a PC gamer, I'd be really freaking pissed off. But if MS threw enough money at Irrational, could I blame them for not doing it? I don't like where this is going.
We're talking about the 360. You're talking about the original Xbox.
4 years ago is back that way.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
Is the flamethrower off yet? Okay, here goes:
IT WAS ROCKSTAR'S DECISION TO RELEASE GTA IV FOR XBOX 360.
1) This article deals with the arrangement for the chaptered content to follow, not the actual development of the core game itself.
2) Rockstar "dumbing down" the graphics of the title is both:
i) premature judgement, as you HAVENT PLAYED THE GAME YET, and
ii) a conscious decision by Rockstar to sell more games, as the 360 has 12 million units on the market.
The idea that you're actually faulting Microsoft for the XBOX's existence, and not Rockstar's decision to develop for it, as though they are some innocent victims whose hands were forced because of circumstance, is some of the most incredibly mind-bendingly misdirected hate I have ever seen in my life.
If Rockstar decided to make the game for the Wii too, is it Nintendo's fault for the game's graphical shortcomings?
Man oh man. If Rockstar had some issue with the 360, then they could have chosen not to develop for it. But at the end of the day, they obviously felt the system was powerful enough to realize the game they wanted to make. Nevermind the fact that the PC by and large is a DVD-only medium too - leaving the PS3 - the system with the weakest sales, as the only system using Blu-Ray. Also, nevermind the fact that testing has shown 360 games by and large look BETTER than their PS3 couterparts - at least for now.
If you have a problem with the XBOX 360's hardware not meeting your tastes, that is fine - don't buy it. But at least 12 million people disagree with you, and Rockstar knows that.
- Scott
HA HA, that funny, but I'm that anyone is suprised by this, Sony had Rockstar by the balls with the GTA series, that the games had to be released on the PS2 first and anything else months later. Now that over, and MS decided to do the smart thing and steal one of the PS biggest franchised right out from under them, with this extra content, does anyone here even think that Rockstar gives a krap what system their game sells on, if the console maker is throwing money at them, and the game is sure to sell on it.
That makes no sense.
The 360 game disc format is a Dual Layer DVD, 7GB... but honestly, with more and more cinematics moving to the game engine, that's not a limitation. I really don't understand what you are trying to say with your nonsensical quotation of "Storage" that has no basis in reality.
Want to know what's going on here?
Microsoft can't get the exclusive on GTA IV, so they are going for an exclusive on the expansion - a very smart thing to do. It has NOTHING to do with disc capacity, understand? Microsoft will make a mint on the Content downloads, and 360 owners will be happy that they get additional content not available on any other platform.
Content is intended for owners with a hard drive (20GB or 120GB drives) and a broadband Live connection. What's new about this? Sony required a hard drive for some games on the PS2... GTA fanatics will gladly pony up the cash for an Elite or replace their Premium 20GB drive with a 120GB drive.
I honestly can't understand why people bitch about Microsoft's downloadable content charges (or Sony's for that matter), unless the costs are excessive for the user. Reasonably priced Live downloads are good business, and until it gets cracked, it's a very solid model for everybody.
Your post is one of the most spectacularly ignorant I've ever read, and I've been reading slashdot for a long time.
It's big
Compared to the Wii, yes. Compared to the PS3, no. Compared to the original PS2, no. Lose one point.
It's loud
The DVD drive is fairly loud. Gain one point.
You have to buy a (shitty) remote control for playing DVD's
This is just plain false. You don't need a remote control, shitty or otherwise, for playing DVDs on the 360. Or, for that matter, for playing video or audio from a PC. Or iPod. Or Mac. Lose two points.
Playing DVD's sucks
Completely subjective. I'm not sure what you think about playing DVDs on the 360 sucks (though I suspect neither do you, since it seems fairly obvious from your prior claim that you've never actually done it), but I'll assume you don't like on-screen controls, or some such. Lose no points, gain no points.
The controllers are clunky
"Clunky" isn't real specific. Their size is pretty much the same as the new Dual Shock. The thumbsticks are better placed (insofar as they're where the thumbs naturally sit), and the trigger buttons are better than the lower shoulders on the Dual Shock (which are, inexplicably, convex. This, presumably, is to help your fingers slip off them). On the other hand, the D-pad on the 360 controller is bizarrely bad. Again, though, this is pretty subjective. I'll call it another wash.
Online access costs money
False. The only thing you can't do without paying for XBL gold is play with other people (oh, and see the Gears of War trailer before Silver members). Granted, that's a major thing, but there's plenty of other stuff that's simply included by owning a 360. Patch downloads, demo downloads, trailers, XBLA, video and music downloads. Lose one point (I'd score it two for being flat-out false like your remote control claim, but online play is a big reason to be online, and you do have to pay for it).
If you leave it on with nothing in the drive, the damn thing has some B-grade sci-fi movie "beep and boop" sounds that are annoying as hell
False. If there's nothing in the drive, in fact, the console is pretty quiet, since it's the drive that's the loud component. It doesn't make any electronic noises at all with nothing in the drive. Unless you mean the noises it makes when you're playing XBLA games which don't need discs, but most of us call those "sound effects" and "soundtracks". Lose two points.
Graphics seem to be a lot less sharp than on the PS2
That's the stupidest thing I've read today. Normally, graphics comparisons are subjective, but you'd have to be blind to think the 360's graphics are less sharp than the PS2. Even if you ignore HD entirely, I can't believe you're making the claim that a console released in late 2006 has graphics worse than a console released in late 2000. Lose two points.
My GF got one, and those things annoyed me so much that I never used it after trying it out for a few weeks
I call bullshit. Most of your claims are flat-out false. There's no way you can believe these things if you'd actually used a 360.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Sorry, you don't have a clue. The PS3 GPU actually under-performs the Xbox360 GPU.
Can we please refrain from using the term next gen to refer to the current generation of gaming hardware. Thanks
Sure - right after the sales of either the PS3 or 360 can exceed last get hardware (specifically the PS2) for at least three months.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If they couldn't keep the content of the "Hot Coffee" fiasco hidden I'm sure it won't be too difficult for someone to liberate this XBOX 360 only content and slide it over to at least the PC version. Heck, for the chance to mess with an XBOX 360 exclusive I may look into the idea myself.
I call bullshit. Most of your claims are flat-out false.
The girlfriend part should have tipped you off immediately!
So its all ok that Sony bailed out Square when they got in over there heads with the final fantasy movie, but if MS does the same to help Rockstar (who has had financial problems for over a year) they are evil? It was a smart move for Sony back in 2001 and its a smart move for MS now. Just as Sony saved Square from the possibility of bankrupcy Microsoft has helped assure Take Two and Rockstar of making it through the coming fiscal year so that GTA IV can actually get published.
0 7/03/FF_160_rockstar?currentPage=1
http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/20
That gives some insight into what has happened over the past couple years at Take-Two, its an interesting read, and most will agree after reading whats been going on that if anything the Sony fanboys complaining should be thanking MS since its likely that their favorite franchise may not have even made it to the shelf otherwise.
First thing that pops into my head upon seeing this news is a punchline
Call of Duty 2 was considered by many to be at its finest on the X-Box 360, it being the overall best-looking, best-performing, and best-playing version of the game. The X-Box 360 uses in no way any sort of x86 code, and even its implementation of DirectX is different than that of the PC.
The PlayStation 2 is a modern graphics system now? A system released in 2000? Are you using a 486?
No. You did NOT just say the PS2 was graphically equivalent to the X-Box. No freaking way, not unless you're playing on an old black & white TV from the 50's. When RE4 for the Gamecube looks very distinguishably better than the (very polished) PS2 variant, and when the X-Box is graphically superior (raw power, AA) to that, you're looking at the PS2 being somewhere off in the rhubarb patch, being largely incapable of AA in hardware, actual performance numbers being lower, since multitexturing and shading are something that has been very important in console graphics basically since the PS2's birth. Comparing numbers directly with the X-Box in similar conditions, the X-Box does it faster, at a higher resolution (PS2 supports only 480p as an alternative to 480i, and only with games specifically supporting it, while the X-Box supports not only 480p, but 720p and 1080i), and with AA. It is absolutely inarguable; the X-Box is simply more powerful than the PlayStation 2, even if its game library isn't exactly impressive.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
So you point out that the Wii has Outsold the PS2 for one month, event though the GGP stated it would need to be 3 months (probably meaning consecutive). I'm not even debating what is or isn't next gen, just that your link doesn't satisfy the proposed conditions.
I got both.
The PS3 is a better piece of hardware by a large margin. Most of the things I need are default (HDMI/Wi-Fi/HDD/Wireless controllers/bluetooth) and the whole thing seems to be well put together. It's quiet, and it matches the rest of my AV setup (black). 3rd party hardware addons are well supported (wheels/headsets, and you can put any size/brand HDD in the thing.
The 360 is noisy, and was only cheap because of the things that you have to buy as addons (rechargable batteries for controllers/wifi/Live! gold). Cheap, however, covers my opinion of the hardware itself. The dvd drive sounds like it's trying to take off. The power supply is external, huge and hot. It looks like a panty shield too, which is only made worse by the fact that's it's white. Oh, no HDMI either, which means I won't be getting the HD-DVD addon, as I will be limited to 1080i. The HDD was also non-default, so most games aren't written to take full advantage of one. Microsoft are total wankers for upgrades though. Only the microsoft wheel will have full functionality, only the MS wifi adapter will work, gay, gay, gay, etc.
Hardware aside though, the 360 kicks the PS3 in the balls for online integration. It's seamless. I was constantly amazed by how well they managed this.
Desktops are personal preference, but I think the XMB has the upper hand.
The rest is just down to small things, like streaming music from my PC when playing 360 games, and most games recognising the fact, and happily coexisting with my tunes. I'm sure the PS3 will pick itself up in this area, but so far, it has not.
Choice of games is still an issue for the PS3, but it will be picking up over the course of this year, and until then, I have Forza Motorsport to occupy my time. Resistance still gets more net play that Gears though, due to the ability to get a 20v20 TDM game in a huge map.
So, in closing, I'm very fond of both of them, but for different reasons.
And in the end they both cost the same. (this includes live gold/wifi/rechargable battery for wireless controller, but not the actual recharger).
Regarding the 360 vs. PS3 GPU: this gets repeated a lot, that the PS3 RSX GPU is weaker. And it's a true, but also misleading, thing to say. In terms of vertex shaders, the Xenos has a clear advantage over the RSX - it's six times as fast. Wow! But in pixel shaders, the RSX is king. Power wise, then, the Xenos ends up a bit more powerful (not 6X). But the GPUs are not isolated parts. They're attached to CPUs with a bus that has a communications bandwidth - and there the difference lies. And so the Cell is used to do the vertex work, and then pushes it to the RSX, where all it needs is pixels. The upshot is that they work together, as another poster hinted at pretty brusquely. In the end, it'll be the games that decide. But looking at what's out right now, half a year into the real competition, and claiming one is weaker than another is retarded. We'll know in a year what the story really is, and probably not before then.